Obama: Washington Liberal, Copenhagen Conservative

By Peter Brown

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, is a former White House correspondent with two decades of experience covering Washington government and politics. Click here for Mr. Brown’s full bio.

Barack Obama, the most liberal American president in memory, is the conservative voice among world leaders in the ongoing dispute about how to respond to warnings of the dangers of climate change.

Strange as this may seem, it makes perfect sense. In Copenhagen, President Obama is the leader of the “haves” in their dispute with the “have-nots.” And representing his country’s best interests comes well before any ideological concerns, at least if he wants a second term in office.

Now, let’s be clear.

In domestic affairs, Mr. Obama is an advocate for national solutions through centralized federal authority. Just look at his agenda of overhauling the health care system on a national basis and his support for a federal mandate on reducing air pollution through limits on emissions.

And, in fact, this president, much more than any of his predecessors, favors American economic concessions to help stem fears about climate change – an issue that has emerged over the past couple of decades.

If there is a Copenhagen agreement that the U.S. signs, it will certainly carry significant economic costs.

The Least-Effective Steps

Yet, on the world stage, Mr. Obama finds himself supporting the least-aggressive steps, advancing the conservative position of opposition to strict world-wide limits on emissions that ask much more of developed nations than of poorer countries. That stands in contrast to the position of the large majority of his fellow leaders gathered for the United Nations conference.

Part of it, of course, is that any international agreement is certain to require wealthy nations to commit to air pollution controls, a move that will limit the profits and competitiveness of American industries.

The Europeans will certainly be forced to pony up, too. But their leaders, for the most part, seem to regard such steps as reparations for centuries of relative prosperity through polluting industrialization, not to mention exploitation of poorer nations during centuries of colonial rule.

The notion of forking over big bucks -– either in cash or through industrial controls that would make U.S. products less competitive in the world marketplace -– is unlikely to sit well with the American people, who are a lot more worried these days about their jobs than anything else.

Any deal that would make Mr. Obama appear to be looking out more for the needs of the rest of the world rather than U.S. interests would be a much larger problem for the president in Cleveland and Charlotte than in Copenhagen.

Besides, one of the great disconnects in politics, no matter the issue or the stage on which it is fought, is often the gap in public opinion between widely shared goals and the lack of popular consensus over how to achieve those goals.

We have spent most of the last year dealing with this dichotomy when it comes to health care. The very popular goal of universal coverage and reducing cost is hung up on the much-less understood and not nearly as popular changes to American society that our lawmakers tell us will be required to meet those ends.

Much the same is true about the unfolding drama taking place in Copenhagen, where world leaders are seeking the unified solution to the questions surrounding the widely held belief that temperatures around the globe are rising at least partially as a result of human actions.

Climate-Gate Raises Questions

The recent “climate-gate” revelations — some scientists active in making the case for the potentially disastrous effects of rising temperatures allegedly squelched dissenters and their evidence — has raised questions in some quarters about the scope of the actual problem.

But not in Copenhagen, where there is infinitely more agreement about the problem than the solution. Some of the proposals would require the U.S. to take steps that would not be required of China and India, which are America’s major economic competitors these days.

Even if Mr. Obama wanted to commit political suicide, any agreement made in Copenhagen would be subject to ratification by the U.S. Congress, where such a deal’s chances are probably slim to none, even with a Democratic majority.

It’s worth remembering that ahead of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the first international agreement on global warming that sanctioned the U.S. and other developed nations but not developing countries, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution stating the U.S. shouldn’t support it. The resolution also said the U.S. shouldn’t support a treaty that “would result in serious harm” to the U.S. economy.

Another solution being advanced by some in Copenhagen would adopt population controls. The chances that the U.S. would agree to limit the number of children a family could bring into this world are zilch.

Given all this, it’s not difficult to see Barack Obama as the conservative stalwart in Copenhagen.

Comments (5 of 25)

I just wish there was a way to speak directly to our President regarding Haiti. I have been following the news daily and tonight, Wednesday, January 20, one week after the earthquake and still very little medical supplies and food has been released and moved to the city from the airports. What the hell is wrong? Their own government is invisable as well. All the volunteers who have made their way into this mess and yet we cannot make sure they are given the means to make a difference. Is no one in charge? The UN is there - what are they doing? I believe our President should just not even show his face to the public until he can
Implement and complete the tasks along with some other countries . I am so disappointed and sad. I hope the monies being offered to help Haiti does not go to their government. They have no idea how to assist their people. Quite frankly, it is as though they don't have the courage, wisdom or tenacity. Extremely Weak People in-charge is all I can thin of.

8:55 am December 19, 2009

Helen Cooke wrote :

We need to get global climate change properly categorized as a threat to homeland security as it actually is in order to get public commitment from our government agencies and national representatives. The Department of Homeland Security would be the appropriate agency to take over defending against the effects of climate change that have already occurred--such as hurrican Katrina and fires and droughts that threaten our food supply--but the agency that protects us against the potential for increased threats will need to be the environmental protection agency, since they have the mission and expertise to do so.

3:21 pm December 17, 2009

Rmoen wrote :

Let's quit the name-calling. Can we all agree that the United States needs to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission and quit outsourcing climate science to the United Nations. It defies common sense that we allow the UN to serve as both judge and advocate (IPCC & Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen). We're in a slow motion trainwreck if we stick with the UN.

Let's forget about the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which deregulated the financial industry, a.k.a. a move towards the free-market end of the spectrum.

9:46 pm December 16, 2009

Jim wrote :

The true sadness behind the Obama Presidency is that he has not been in control of the agenda from day-one. Five years ago he was in the Illinois State Senate. Five years later he's in the White House....

The special interests that backed him are trying to ram through changes before the 2010 elections while the Democrats still control both the House and Senate.

Obama is probably as horrified at the pace of proposals being put forth by his "backers" as are the rest of us. Hopefully he will begin to show some backbone and reclaim the Presidency. Right now his Presidency is a joke.

About Capital Journal

Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s unique site for analysis of the political and policy maneuvering in Washington in the era of Barack Obama. It features the Capital Journal columns and occasional other postings by executive Washington editor Gerald F. Seib, and will house Political Wisdom, the Journal’s daily aggregation of the smartest political analysis from around the Internet. Also look for regular columns by Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute and occasional contributions from others.